The Instigator
Pro (for)
1 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
6 Points

Homosexuality is quite unnatural!

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/26/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 753 times Debate No: 74215
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




Last year a certain Lynnette Cowper on purported to show seven "iron-clad" reasons (at least she thought so) why homosexuality is NOT unnatural! Without going into great detail concerning her "refutations", suffice it to say that essentially she based her argument predominately on the notion that because homosexuality occurs elsewhere in nature (i.e., within other species), homosexuality is "natural".

But what she failed to consider is that the term unnatural has other equally valid definitions such as: contrary to the ordinary course of nature; abnormal. Based on that definition alone, homosexuality, because it contradicts the entire meaning (and hence purpose) behind gender because it essentially goes against the ultimate purpose of procreation (the normal and natural sexual union of male and female needed in order to perpetuate the species) is absolutely, positively abnormal and unnatural. Incest contradicts the natural purpose of sexual reproduction to be conducted outside one's own family to ensure a healthy blending of genes and to guard against birth defects. Both homosexuality and incest are equally U-N-N-A-T-U-R-A-L!! Both are abnormal behaviors that contribute nothing to the perpetuation of the human species!

I'm not a religious person (in fact I"m strictly agnostic) so I don't believe homosexuality is immoral, nor do I think it's criminal. That said, I do stand behind Nature 100% in endorsing heterosexuality as the only legitimate form of mating (sexual mating, that is, since technically speaking only male and female can sexually mate): ~500,000,000 years of evolutionary legitimacy to back up that claim, baby! To compare homosexuality to heterosexuality as if they're both "the same thing" is incredibly asinine, absurd, and, quite frankly, offensive. On the scale of unnatural abominations homosexuality lies somewhere between incest and cannibalism (and mind you, both occur in nature). Male & female: Viva la difference!


Hello everyone, Mick.
Id likely to formally apologize for any lack of insight in terms of grammar as I am not a born English speaker, nor do I live in a English speaking country. Please be patient with me, but I will do my utmost to make this readable and interesting.

For one to conclude that homosexuality is not natural, they must conclude that it is harmful to the species, or at at the very least it is not in anyway beneficial and thus at the least a random occurrence that may happen within the population for no perceivable reason, a fluke of nature.

Lets begin with delving into the perception that for one to be valuable to society, one must be able to conceive a child.
Human society, as our intelligence grew, so did its complexity. We shook off the shackles of "Shelter, Food, Mate" as absolute concerns as the health of the society as a whole became as important as that of the individual.

The first main subject of my debate: Menopause.
Menopause is very unique in the animal kingdom to have with any significant length of life occurring afterwards.
In fact its only witnessed in three species that we know of in all of the animal kingdom - Killer Whales and Pilot Whales, that are both actually Dolphin species and have very evolved social interactions - and humans.
Why would this exist so rarely, amongst three species, one of which has only a evolutionary connection to the other two via ungulates (hoofed animals), with their latest known branching from each other going as far back as 100 million years back?
It seems counter-intuitive to evolution, a dominant genetic phenomenon that stops the families of the species from being able to give birth only 2/3rds into the length of a life cycle, causing them to be a drain on resources while clearly not being able to offer as much physical work as the younger of the species. While I will touch on it far less, lets also bring into account human man's plummeting sperm count and ability to copulate as they grow older, with it happening long before life expectancy brings them to an age where they are not beneficial to society.

The answer, upon close inspection, is simple enough. The more sophisticated a species becomes, the more irrelevant the basic approach to tribal existence becomes. It is not about simply pushing out numbers, but about giving the society added safety nets to nurture the ones that are already alive. Elders become important, irregardless of their ability to bear children. In fact, in all three species it is the elders, the ones without the ability to breed, that lead. Often they will take it upon themselves to aid society much more openly as they no longer have children that must be the focus and goal of their lives, and so the well being of the society becomes that focus, making these creatures that are unable to breed crucial to the well being of the whole. Homosexual couples could fill many holes, such as foster parents, gay men would be able to focus more on hunting and protection of the community, and gay women would be able to better serve the community, which is especially important in old tribal settings where starvation was not uncommon. It meant there was someone putting effort directly into the existing group without taking anything out for her own offspring, and as you may know, women gathered far more food then the men in prehistoric times, prior to farming.

Lets go further into the aspect of breeding.
If there are 100 men in a group and 5 women, the group will still be able to only bear around 5-8 children annually at very best.
If there are 100 women and 5 men, they would be able to produce over a 100 children a year in healthy circumstances.
Therefor if homosexuality would be a evolutionarily planned occurrence, rather then a socially unfeasible random one, then it would make logical sense that homosexuality would less problematic to the society were it more male based.
Enter - bisexuality.
Its long been studied that women are far more likely to be bisexual then men, in turn meaning that when necessary to expand on population due to the ravages of nature, women are more likely able to maintain a single sex relationship and breed with a male for the good of the community (source listed at the end).
That seems far more likely to be a benefit then random.

Lastly, id like to talk about 'abominations'. For a non-religious person you use a very negative critical world created by religion in order to shame those that do not sit into what western society deemed appropriate. Its a telling sign of bias even at the claim that your are accepting.
Furthermore, you are comparing Homosexuality which causes no ill affects on health to Incest which does, severely, and cannibalism, which is the main culprit of diseases caused by Prions - Mad Cow Disease, Scrappy, and human Kuru.
It is outright offensive to compare something you do not agree with to harmful acts, when there is nothing harmful about it. It is the same as when the religious compare it to pedophilia or necrophilia.
It is the very height of intellectual absurdity.

That is my argument.
Once again, my apologies for an inconsistencies with my English.
Debate Round No. 1


"For one to conclude that homosexuality is not natural, they must conclude that it is harmful to the species, or at at the very least it is not in anyway beneficial" - Since when? Clearly homosexuality is no detriment to the species unless everyone "turned gay" which would lead to extinction. Homosexuality is contrary to the purpose of gender, contrary to the purpose Nature intended by dividing sexual species up into male and female. Thus homosexuality is abnormal and unnatural.

"Lets begin with delving into the perception that for one to be valuable to society, one must be able to conceive a child." This "point" is meaningless. Plenty of straight couples can't have children and many single unmarried people choose not to have children for whatever reason and I'm sure they add value to whatever society they belong to. Homosexuality ultimately serves no biological process and again is contrary to the purpose of gender. It's unnatural.

I reject any and all perversions of gender as simple "baggage" that a society can live without. As a man I fully understand that men are simply "nasty" savage brutes and that women are the most underrated, under appreciated gifts of love, life and sweetness on earth. To say that women are the 'fairer' sex is a serious understatement; they are the glue which holds the entire world together. Male and female blend together on every conceivable level that two people can and gays will never understand that. I'm supremely grateful that I'm not gay! I'm a purist and reject anything that cheapens the gender bond, whether it be incest, gendercest, pornography, rape, or any other vile unnatural slap in the face of Nature our backwards species can conceive. Man has no respect for Nature whatsoever and I'm frankly disgusted with it.


Abnormal is not un-natural, your connecting two very different things that are not reliant on one another.
The first Africans that moved up north and were born with lighter skin then the others were abnormal, but it wasnt un-natural, it was the opposite.. a natural abnormality due to genetically mutation in the benefit of the species. You would not have evolution without abnormality.
Any genetic variation that would be deemed advantageous to a species would occur more often. Lets take the example of ADHD. In todays society it is 'clear' to us that is a mental disorder, yet paleontologists and psychiatrists disagree:
""Having the profile of what we now call ADHD would have made you a Paleolithic success story," Weill Cornell Medical College clinical psychiatry professor Richard A. Friedman suggested in a recent op-ed for The New York Times."
( )
Human evolution cares nothing for social changes that have happened in the past 100 or 5000 years. It does not change nearly as fast as societal opinion.

Your second point - yes some cant have children, but that is far a rarer circumstance and much of it is connected to congenital disease or pathology.
The concept, as well, that plenty of 'children dont want to have a child' is something society has created in the last centuries alone. Again, evolution and genetics do not care for a few centuries worth of societal changes. Such a concept is a new phenomenon and has zero relevance on the issue of the natural fit of homosexuality into humanity.
Beyond this, you say that couples who may not have children or do not wish to have children add value to society.. that is biological purpose.. and then you continue to completely contradict yourself in the next sentence.

Lastly, your final argument is completely opinion based.
You provide not proof, no fact, no source, no scientific appeal to an issue that you try to argue from a scientific perspective, that of nature, which does not care for your emotions on the subject. Nature is brutal and unemotional, and in direct contrast of your opinion of its function.
Furthermore, you completely and outright ignored my comment on Menopause, one which provides factual evidence that a member of society does not need to exist within typical boundaries in order to be beneficial.
You also fail to study the subject your so absolutely sure of. Gay or lesbian couples could never understand the love that a man and woman feel? Why? What proof do you have? Your own personal bias because you find it 'icky' and your not attracted to men therefor those that are, are obviously lesser then you? Have you ever been in a gay relationship that you know their love is lesser?
Ever heard of the Band of Thebes?

In a debate, what disgusts you because of your own personal beliefs that are completely absent of fact and dwell only on a emotion, is irrelevant and I honestly dont care how you feel about the subject. Your hear to debate a subject on the premise of intellect and you are failing.

This is not a debate, this is an empty op-ed for you to publicize your feelings empty of any rational context.
Debate Round No. 2


The ultimate proof is in the biology. Heterosexuality serves a well defined purpose and guarantees the perpetuation of the species. Homosexuality is some kind of freak mutation that serves no biological purpose whatsoever. I imagine that you fancy yourself as some kind of "defender of the (LGBT) cause" with your longwinded, self-indulgent passages that really don't say much; I can tell you've spouted this litany of "defenses" of homosexuality many times in the past (or at least you give me reason to suspect that you've done so) and you've grown quite frustrated from the effort. Opinion invariably pops up in these informal "debate" forums so try not to take these "comments" too seriously otherwise you'll just end up giving yourself an ulcer. (BTW, you really do talk too much, but again that's just me!)

Homosexuality is contrary to the course of nature, contrary to the purpose of gender that only heterosexuality fulfills, and it has no biological, evolutionary legitimacy; heterosexuality has been around for an estimated half billion years and has been the "bread winner" of our success as a species so far. By the definition I quoted in my first posting homosexuality is a deviation from the norm that, again, contradicts the intended natural purpose of gender. In that sense at least homosexuality is unnatural.


Your declaring proof, and then substituting with pure opinion. That's the only way you can easily wave off paragraphs of inform worth of showing you how reproduction of the individual has not become the prime goal of advanced intelligent communities.

You talk biology, something I have a partial degree in as a Veterinary student, and then you over simplify it as much as possible to make it relevant to your point, ignoring any further information demanding you respect biology as the beast that it is: Something so complicated that we better know the universe and the first .000001 second of its creation then we do the human brain.
Simplifying biology demands erroneous results. Ignoring any of its actual science while determining the nature of biology, and the biology of nature, would make an academic shrug and walk away because you are not using any level of intellect to make your argument , your making it clear its about how terrible you, as an individual, view it, and you super-impose nature into it, or rather a former of pseudo-biology, to justify your argument rather then doing the opposite.
Your are the modern form of Phrenology. Phrenology was the 'science' of determining a the structure of the interior part of the skull to determine characteristics of its owner. Its primary use was to 'prove' that, by 'fact' of nature, whites were superior to all the other lesser races. They were true humans, a separate species, 'special'.

As for evolution.. evolution seems to take care of unwanted genes. They might never disappear, but their frequency is sure lessened.
Yet, despite that half the world outlawed homosexuality as a mortal sin one could be killed for, a distinguishable percentage of the population is still gay. That goes against the principals of 'accidents of nature'.
If you would've taken the time to respond to any of my actual points, like how ADHD is seen as a 'Disease' today but is so frequent because not long ago it was a major boon to the individual and the society or company he kept.
You didn't, just like you outright refused to have a debate.
A debate is about points, and counter points. Answering someone's information with your own using sources, logic, viable information.
You didn't want a debate.. you wanted to rant about how icky you thought gay people are, and wanted to justify your bigotry through your calorie rich, nutritionally empty barrage of .. nothing.
You provided nothing to make this seem anything else then that.
You want to beat your chest about how being like you is right, and how being like somone else who is different and you dont quite understand is wrong.
You use the word abnormal, never taking time to think that to a person of a different skin color or culture, YOUR abnormal.
Your own words say,
"To compare homosexuality to heterosexuality as if they're both "the same thing" is incredibly asinine, absurd, and, quite frankly, offensive."
I guess you consider women abnormal and abominations, because their much different then you then a gay man is.
If somethings not the same, its wrong.

I get it though. It is an abomination. Two consenting adults who are in love and wish to be together is one of the worst thing humanity can offer. Luckily you can see through it, with your ever important bigotry.
Thank god for people like you or we might all one day forget that everyones just a person.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Finalfan 3 years ago
How can something that occurs in nature be "unnatural"? Even if modified by society and culture, homosexuality exists, Therefore it is natural!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by MissLuLu 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Reasons for voting decision: The only reason Pro receives the point for spelling and grammar is because it was used correctly throughout. I understand Con is not a native speaker, but Con did very well despite this. As a homosexual myself, I admit I am biased in this "debate," and so agreed with Con in the beginning. However, I continued to agree with Con throughout because Pro never offered any substantial evidence that homosexuality was detrimental or unnatural, nor did Pro refute Con's arguments. Pro insulted Con, stating that Con "talked too much." If Pro did not want such a long argument in each round, Pro should have limited the word count. Pro offered no sources, only opinion (aside from the definition in R1). The one source Con used backed up Con's claim. All in all, Pro did not instigate a debate, but rather a battle of opinions of a sort. This is made apparent due to Pro's lack of civil, intelligent, and unbiased response. Thank you.